Baker pulls ahead in Massachusetts

[IceSpear]

Why would Massachusetts Democrats nominate a centrist proven loser?

Why did Democrats decide to go with a proven loser?

Why would Massachusetts Republicans nominate a centrist proven loser?

Why did Republicans decide to go with a proven loser?

Baker lost to a popular incumbent governor. Coakley lost to a little-known state senator. Huge difference.

Patrick wasn't popular back then, IIRC.

Yeah, his ratings were mediocre at best.

[free my dawg]

Also worth noting that this is an eight-point swing in the span of a week.

Let's wait a week for the next poll. I'm not so convinced that the rumors of Coakley's demise are true.

[Brittain33]

Competent Republican in the high 30s makes a lot of sense. There is a high republican floor for state races here.

Controversial Democrat in a competitive primary in the high 30s also makes sense.

The undecideds are not a favorable pool for Baker. He can win this, but a 1 point lead with high undecideds is basically meaningless except to indicate his viability.

[Rockefeller GOP]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mass is one state that votes very indy in gubernatorial elections. I see this as Coakley loss. Not an effect on the Dem party in these midterms. We can still win in WI and FL while losing this seat.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

Would be good if they could emerge from their exile and save the GOP from itself.

But on topic... it's a weird poll. While I could believe that Coakley could lose, there is a lot that makes very little sense to me. 18% undecided? C'mon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mass is one state that votes very indy in gubernatorial elections. I see this as Coakley loss. Not an effect on the Dem party in these midterms. We can still win in WI and FL while losing this seat.

True, they have more of a history of having Democrats lose in governor races  than Senate races, where only one *ahem* Democrat lost since 1972.

[Eraserhead]

Oh god, Coakley...

[Rockefeller GOP]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

Would be good if they could emerge from their exile and save the GOP from itself.

But on topic... it's a weird poll. While I could believe that Coakley could lose, there is a lot that makes very little sense to me. 18% undecided? C'mon.

While I agree (with your first part), every Republican nominee in New England (besides a few exceptions) seems to be an authentic moderate.  Scott Brown held a Senate seat in MA less than two years ago, and if people aren't willing to call him moderate, then they're extremists!

[NHLiberal]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

Would be good if they could emerge from their exile and save the GOP from itself.

But on topic... it's a weird poll. While I could believe that Coakley could lose, there is a lot that makes very little sense to me. 18% undecided? C'mon.

While I agree (with your first part), every Republican nominee in New England (besides a few exceptions) seems to be an authentic moderate.  Scott Brown held a Senate seat in MA less than two years ago, and if people aren't willing to call him moderate, then they're extremists!

He was a moderate in Massachusetts. But now that he's denying climate change, running against immigration, and waffling away from his previous pro-choice/contraception stances, no, he's not really a moderate

[IceSpear]

lol

They are polling Massachusetts, right?

Masschusetts is no stranger to electing republicans. Of the last five governors, only 1 (Deval Patrick) was a democrat.

Still leaving this at Lean D. I'd like to see Suffolk, Purple Strategies, or PPP.

I realize that. But considering the republican types of governors that the Northeast used to elect are gone, they should be going overwhelmingly D, even if Baker is a good candidate and Coakley is a bad one.

I know it's treated as gospel, but those types of Republicans are NOT gone.  Period.

Would be good if they could emerge from their exile and save the GOP from itself.

But on topic... it's a weird poll. While I could believe that Coakley could lose, there is a lot that makes very little sense to me. 18% undecided? C'mon.

While I agree (with your first part), every Republican nominee in New England (besides a few exceptions) seems to be an authentic moderate.  Scott Brown held a Senate seat in MA less than two years ago, and if people aren't willing to call him moderate, then they're extremists!

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/scott-brown-pulls-rare-climate-reversal

It's pretty obvious he was just faking being a moderate to try to get re-elected. Now that he's running in a redder state he feels no need to do so.

[SWE]

Lol at the "Coakley is a sure loser!!!1111" circlejerk.

I love that no one is mentioning the fact that in their final poll of the 2012 election cycle, Boston Globe had Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren tied 47-47 in a race Warren went on to win 54-46.

Not to mention that this same poll shows Berwick trailing 19-44 and Grossman trailing 33-37. These are the worst numbers that either of them have had for a while in this poll too.

Once the real campaign actually begins and voters tune in, Coakley, who is Massachusetts's most popular officeholder, will win.

If Talleyrand thinks Democrats will win, it's time to move this race to Safe D.